Note: It’s kind of confusing, but the post “1. The Ghost in the Shell,” did not mean that that was the #1 thing of the year, despite it following the other two Year End Review posts.

Here on Dreck Fiction I’ve talked about Scott Pilgrim vs. The World at length, so this will probably be retreading old territory — bear with me. In the end, the most awesome thing I saw this year came out last year, Edgar Wright’s third, and in my opinion, best movie — crazy as that sounds. When I first saw the movie over the summer, I was blown the hell away. Unfortunately I saw it the last day it was available OnDemand, one of the motivating factors behind the big decision to press enter. I always knew I was gonna like Scott Pilgrim; the trailers seemed promising and I had a lot of faith in Edgar Wright to make something that was at least entertaining. I remember very specifically — quite a feat, as I saw this perhaps five months ago — my dad came in the room and delivered some message so I had to pause the movie, and I paused it right before the Ramona/Roxy fight, maybe after Ramona threw Ann (who?) away. Sitting there, I was just thinking to myself, “I’ve really enjoyed this movie so far. I like the direction this is headed.”

As somebody who’s invested some time in learning about filmmaking, it’s hard for me not to zero in on the technical side of things, and ever since I started this blog I tend to think critically about movies when I’m watching them. Scott Pilgrim actually rewarded me for being aware of the filmmaking, because it’s such a finely crafted movie that when immersion is eschewed in this way, it’s a good thing. It allowed me to notice the details, which to director Edgar Wright are extremely important. The frame is always brimming with significant details and easter eggs — and boy does he and DP Bill Pope love the frame.

In terms of the look of the movie, it’s not even “look what we can do,” not even “look what we can do and how well” — it’s a spectacle resultant of very measured craft. Every eyepopping moment on screen, whether a product of the camera movement, clever composition, actor blocking, or visual effect, means something. Of course, the point of contention then for critics is that what it all means may not interest them, but that’s no excuse to not recognize the inspiring brilliance in this film’s making. Scott Pilgrim, appreciated today only by a small but very, very vocal minority, will have genre standing as time goes on.

It’s an outstanding example of the action-comedy, which, like the horror-comedy (of which Edgar Wright so excelled in six years earlier), requires a hefty amount of balance: tone, structure, wit — these elements aren’t enough, it’s within their combination that Scott Pilgrim and Slither and Desperado and other great, modern genre-mashups emerge. They must work with each other; this doesn’t feel like an action movie with comedic elements or a comedy with action scenes, it’s a whole film that plays out from start to finish, and by the time we reach the end, we’ve laughed, we’ve been excited, and we’re had our hearts warmed. The manufactured feel of so many other comedies and so, so many other action movies was left at the door.

The film had a predestination in terms of its artistic success, just like The Thing (2011), the next Mary Elizabeth Winstead movie, was doomed to critical and commercial failure at the point of its inception. It was based on preexisting material, which is a first for the director, though at the time of screenwriting the final volume had yet to be released, which led to some merciful reshoots* at the end of production. I’ve never read the comic, but I think the process and idea of adaptation set the wheels in motion for Edgar Wright. He took on a mission and was rather noble about it. Like Rodriguez wanting to make Frank Miller’s Sin City over Robert Rodriguez’s Sin City, Wright strove to recreate the comic, but adapt it to the moving medium of film.

With such a dedicated force at the helm, there should’ve been little doubt in my mind that Scott Pilgrim was a movie to look out for, and right now there’s little doubt in my mind that the director’s fourth movie will be one to watch. It’s a pretty bold adaptation — in these days of Nolan’s Batman and endless reboots (these X-Men weren’t gritty enough), Scott Pilgrim feels fresh. The creators behind the film obviously adore the movie medium, and don’t shy away from its possibilities. Some people (I think) have called Crank one of the best comic book movies ever, because it is exactly that, despite not being based on anything.

Crank is the antithesis to a movie like X-Men Origins: Wolverine, or any of the X-Men movies, which like Spider-Man and the Fantastic Four and Ghost Rider and all these things — it revels in its form. Movies, like comic-books, have a heightened reality, but somehow this gets lost in Hollywood’s endless struggle to be super serious and realistic. I’m not saying that when Peter Parker and Mary Jane upside-down kiss that CG hearts should come out, because that would be inappropriate to its foundational laws of reality, but the dedication to realism has led filmmakers to want to play it safe in terms of spectacle.

With such high budgets, why don’t we ever see something that’s completely balls-to-the-walls? Like fucking Punisher: War Zone! Christ, every time I gotta complain about these damn comic book movies that’ll always be mentioned. War Zone wasn’t made on a $100 million budget, but it was totally fun. It had energy. Like Scott Pilgrim, which, because it was made on a very high budget, was able to go above and beyond. Very rarely in that movie has a frame been untouched by frenetic computer enhancements and craazy color.

At the end of the movie, we know that the heroes are going to fight the villains, probably in New York, and they’ll throw cars around. With a movie like Scott Pilgrim, it’s a mystery as to what’s simply going to be seen next. And when something wild happens, it’s almost always logical or, at least, never truly out of left field. Giant animated yeti is going to fight dragons in the middle of a battle of the bands? Sounds alright to me.

Well, that’s probably enough of my Continuing Adventures in Eternal Praise for this One Movie for now. I kind of lost steam there towards the end, but those comic book movies always piss me off, so when I perceive a chance to rant, I’ll take it.

So there you have it. Those are the ten best, and two worst, things I saw this year. Overall, it was pretty solid. Last year there were actually ten movies, but hey — if TV shows are gonna be as good as Arrested Development, I’ll certainly take TV shows. Good night, and have a happy New Year! (Excuse me if you don’t celebrate New Year’s, I know that’s not very PC of me**).

*The original ending to the movie was changed when the final book was released. Originally, and you can still see these scenes in the DVD, Scott ends up with Knives. Thankfully Brian Lee O’Malley was there to save the day, and Edgar Wright was so goddamn dedicated to being true to the source…

5 comments

The funny thing about Punisher: War Zone is that they gave the fans exactly what they were asking for, and it was treated like it was the worst piece of shit ever filmed. It was the best comic book movie in years, but to the geek elite, it committed the unforgivable sin of not being overly serious. How fucking sad is it that “fun” is so frowned upon? Everything has to feel like a sequel to Seven or something. I can’t tell you how lucky I feel that movies like Iron Man and Sherlock Holmes are still getting made, because I consider them far better Batman movies than what Chris Nolan has been giving us.

Iron Man was really good — not only a well structured and balanced narrative, but something with the exact right tone. New Dark Knight Rises trailer is online, but I’m much more interested in the new Ghost Rider, despite it being PG-13. That to me was a shocker, but it doesn’t take much for me to see a Nicolas Cage movie so whatever…

Of course, after the failure of War Zone, it was sort of ‘decided’ that there was no market for R-rated superhero movies. Though I feel like Kick-Ass made some money (never saw it; no interest). War Zone is like the swan song for a type of movie that only rarely exists… a fallen hero indeed

Kick-Ass isn’t bad at all, but it’s not the brilliant work of art that the geeks would have you believe. It’s one of those movies that thinks it’s a lot smarter and hipper than it really is. Still, Nic Cage is great it in, and What’s Her Face is good as the little girl who kills people and calls them cunts. I enjoyed X-Men: First Class more, but the director never lived up to Layer Cake, his terrific little British gangster flick with Daniel Craig from 2004.

The first Ghost Rider movie is some really hilariously bad shit, but I really dig the trailer for the second one. The early reviews have been terrible, but a few of them have compared it to War Zone, so I’m sure I’ll enjoy it.

What bothers me more than the decrease in R-rated films is this stupid fucking geek pandering. Why do studios listen to a small minority of geeks on the internet and try so hard to please them? And I especially hate it when they let directors make $250 million fan films like Superman Returns.

As a lad, I saw the first Ghost Rider in theatres, and it was so… bland. Dude uses the ‘Pennance Stare’ on every villain and wins — let’s hope Nelvedine/Taylor actually do some action scenes. I’ll have to check out those reviews, but negative reviews of these types of movies always file me up…

Pandering to geeks is the biggest misstep execs make. I can’t think of a harder demographic to please! Let’s takenthe DOOM movie for example, though I think I’ve talked about this before. When it splits from the game’s story (what do I mean, story?) nerds cry. But when they stick to the story, critics laugh.

Nerds. They’re rarely the arbiters of good movies. I know — I’ve seen some of the Evangelion movies. Hooooooly shiiiiii…..